Vena said:
VanceIX said:
In that case, Nintendo would have no need to buy the rest of the shares in 2011 as they did.
A 20% share is significant enough in influencing aspects of the company.
|
Yes, its called politicking in the business room. Why they bought it could have any number of reasons, but that doesn't chnage the fact of how board of directors and shareholding works. Majority shareholding is a very important aspect of business ventures, thats why companies buy out 51% of a company or more, because that is the point at which they gain control of the company and its board of directors. They own the company at that point. The other % make it possible for someone else to possible start buying from other parties and then possibly try to make a deal with the owner. Companies will then buy out 100% to avoid this ever happening.
|
Except Namco specifically held out selling all shares in order to keep "involvement" with the company. I see that as a sure sign that Nintendo didn't have complete influence over them.
To each his own though, I'm starting to feel like I'm bashing Nintendo when I'm not. I love Nintendo, and just wanted to point out that the newer franchises don't quite match up to the older (and seeng as that the older ones are so good, I have little problem with it).
You're Gonna Carry That Weight.
